Kí ni ìwọ ì bá ti ṣe ní ọ̀nà tí ó yàtọ̀ lórí ìrànwọ́ epo, ìyípadà sí àṣẹ-ìjọba, àti ìwà ìbàjẹ́ nígbà tí o jẹ́ igbákejì ààrẹ?

Q41: How will you ensure that any subsidy reaches consumers rather than becoming additional profit for refinery owners, being diverted, or being abused through corruption and false claims? Answer: Subsidies will be paid only on verified volume output measured by digital meters at refinery gates, backed by end-to-end supply chain tracking to prevent false claims and smuggling. Q42: Which refineries would qualify for the subsidy, how will Nigerians know how much government is spending, and what mechanisms will ensure transparency? Answer: All licensed public and private domestic refineries qualify. Transparency is guaranteed through monthly public reporting of crude allocations, refined outputs, and subsidy payouts on an open portal. Q43: How long would the subsidy last, and what conditions would determine when it should be reduced or ended? Answer: My policy includes a clear sunset clause, gradually unwinding the subsidy as domestic refining meets 100% of national demand, foreign exchange stabilizes, and consumer incomes rise.

I have always advocated for far-reaching reforms to reposition Nigeria's oil sector and, indeed, other sectors of our economy. In particular, I had consistently called on the Buhari administration to break its monopoly in all infrastructure sectors, including the refineries, and give investors, both foreign and domestic, a larger role in funding and management. My position has been well laid out in The Atiku Plan (2018) and My Covenant With Nigerians (2022). But our suggestions fell on deaf ears. First, they refused to privatize the refineries. They left them idle for years while paying humongous staff salaries. Then, they contracted a loan of US$1.5 billion for rehabilitation. Now, the current administration wants to turn the rehabilitated refinery to private concerns for operation and maintenance! Without prejudice to the terms of the agreement between the NNPC and the private operators, it would undoubtedly have been better if the NNPC had sold the refinery, pre-rehabilitation, to avoid the burden of debt.

The latest revelations circulating through credible media outlets regarding the federal government's covert continuation of the subsidy on Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) represent another chapter in the opaque governance under President Bola Tinubu’s administration. This development starkly contrasts with the President's firm assertions in a national broadcast, which followed closely on the heels of public protests decrying poor governance, where he declared the subsidy regime concluded. However, disclosures prior to his announcement have consistently indicated a resurgence of subsidy payments, albeit through less transparent means. This dissonance between the President’s words and his actions not only undermines the moral fabric of his leadership but also significantly erodes the credibility of his administration. At a time when the nation grapples with severe fuel scarcity and escalating energy costs, the continued delays in the re-operation of the Port Harcourt refinery stand as a national disgrace — a failure that rests firmly on the shoulders of President Tinubu, who also holds the office of the Minister of Petroleum Resources.

As WOTCLEF navigates these challenges, let us draw strength from the shared vision that unites us. Together, we have the power to create a Nigeria free from the grips of human trafficking—where every woman and child can live in safety, dignity, and hope. Each of us has a role to play, no matter how small, in this essential endeavour. To Her Excellency Amina Titi Atiku Abubakar, thank you for your indomitable spirit and for your unwavering belief in the possibility of change. Your legacy is one of compassion, resilience, and impact. Together, let us commemorate this milestone and renew our commitment to the vision of WOTCLEF—a vision that will guide us resolutely into a brighter future. Let us continue advocating for policies that protect the rights of women and children, challenging systemic inequalities, and eradicating the scourge of child labour. Today, we recommit ourselves to these efforts. Let us draw inspiration from Titi’s legacy of service, her unwavering courage, and her resolute spirit.

What We Would Have Done Differently I've been inundated with inquiries of what I would have done differently if I were at the helm of affairs of our country. I am not the president, Tinubu is. The focus should be on him and not on me or any other. I believe that such inquiries distract from the critical questions of what President Bola Tinubu needs to do to save Nigerians from the excruciating pains arising from his trial-and-error economic policies. However, I understand and appreciate the challenges faced by citizens in seeking alternatives to what is not working for them. I hope Tinubu and members of his administration are humble enough to borrow one or two things from our ideas in the interest of the Nigerian people. I would now go ahead and articulate some of our ideas that would have had the potential to transform our beloved country. IN GENERAL We would have planned better and more robustly: My journey of reforms would have benefited from more adequate preparations; more sufficient diagnostic assessment of the country’s conditions; more consultations with key stakeholders; and better ideas for the final destination.

We would have been guided by my robust reform agenda as encapsulated in 'My Covenant With Nigerians', my policy document that sought to, among others, protect our fragile economy against much deeper crisis by preventing business collapse; our document had spelt out policies that were consistent and coherent. We would have sequenced my reforms to achieve fiscal and monetary congruence. Unleashing reforms to determine an appropriate exchange rate, cost-reflective electricity tariff, and PMS price at one and the same time is certainly an overkill. Add CBN’s bullish money tightening spree. As importers of PMS and other petroleum products, removing subsidy on these products without a stable exchange rate would be counterproductive. We would have been more strategic in our response to reform fallout. We would not over-estimate the efficacy of the reform measures or underestimate the potential costs of reforms. I would recognise that reforms could sometimes fail. I would not underestimate the numerous delivery challenges, including the weaknesses of our institutions, and would work assiduously to correct the same. I would, as a responsible leader, pause, reflect, and where necessary, review implementation.

SUBSIDY REMOVAL Yes, I have always advocated for the removal of subsidy on PMS because its administration has been mildly put, opaque with so much scope for arbitrariness and corruption. Mind boggling rent profit from oil subsidy accrued to the cabals in public institutions and the private sector. I would have prioritized the following: First, tackling corruption. Fighting corruption should have commenced with the repositioning of the NNPCL, which is a huge beneficiary of the status quo. Its commitment to reform and capacity to implement and enforce reforms is suspect. The subsidy regime has provided an avenue for rent seeking, and the NNPCL and its guardians will be threatened by reforms. Second, paying particular attention to Nigeria’s poor refining infrastructure. We are by far the most inefficient OPEC member country in terms of both the percentage of installed refining capacity that works and the percentage of crude refined. We would’ve commenced the privatization of all state-owned refineries and ensure that Nigeria starts to refine at least 50% of its current crude oil output. Nigeria should aspire to export 50% of that capacity to ECOWAS member states.

Third, adopt a gradualist approach in the implementation of the subsidy reforms. Subsidies would not have been removed suddenly and completely. It is instructive that when I was Vice President, we adopted a gradualist approach and had completed phases 1 and 2 of the reform before our tenure ended. The incoming administration in 2007 abandoned the reforms, unfortunately. The majority of the countries that review or rationalize subsidy payments adopt a gradualist approach by phasing price increases or shifting from universal to targeted approach (Malaysia, 2022 and Indonesia, 2022 -2023). In many EU economies, complete withdrawal often takes 5 years to effect. The gradualist approach allows for adjustments, adaptation and minimizes disruptions and vulnerability. Fourth, implement a robust social protection programme that will support the poor in navigating the cost-of-living challenges arising largely from reform implementation. We would’ve invested the savings from subsidy withdrawal to strengthen the productive base of the economy through infrastructure maintenance and development; to improve outcomes in education and healthcare delivery; to improve rural infrastructure and support livelihood expansion in agriculture; and develop the skills and entrepreneurial capacity of our youth in order to enhance their access to better economic opportunities.

The Nigerian worker, the teacher, the nurse, the factory hand, the civil servant, the artisan, has been the primary victim of an administration that, by all observable evidence, is far more interested in increasing the revenue at its disposal than in improving the lives of the citizens it governs. Trillions Saved, But Nothing Felt. The fuel subsidy removal was a necessary step, recklessly executed. Let me be clear: the removal of the fuel subsidy was, in principle, a policy that many, including myself, had long advocated. The subsidy had become a fiscal haemorrhage that enriched cabal middlemen while denying the government of the resources needed for development. Its removal was necessary and overdue. But the manner in which the Tinubu administration executed this policy was irresponsible and callous. On the day of inauguration, with no preparation, no safety nets, no cushioning mechanisms, and no transition plan for ordinary Nigerians, the President announced the end of the subsidy. The price of fuel skyrocketed. Transportation costs doubled and tripled overnight. The cost of food and basic goods hit the roof. The Nigerian worker, who was already struggling to survive on a salary eroded by years of inflation, was suddenly confronted with a cost of living that made mere survival feel like a luxury.

Different languages. Different cultures. One reality. No Nigerian youth wakes up hoping for unemployment. No Nigerian parent dreams of sending a child to an unsafe school. No entrepreneur prays for higher inflation. No family wishes to live in fear. Our shared challenges must produce a shared purpose. The Nigeria we seek will never be built on ethnic suspicion or religious division. It will be built by citizens who understand that our diversity is a strength—not a weakness. In 2027, let us vote for competence. Let us vote for character. Let us vote for ideas. Let us vote for the future. Mandate Number Three: Become Builders of a New Nigeria. I ask you today not merely to support a candidate. I ask you to build a movement. A movement founded on ideas. A movement rooted in integrity. A movement committed to peaceful democratic change. Go back to your communities. Go back to your campuses. Go back to your workplaces.

Atiku says production subsidy will protect Nigerian refineries, cut domestic production costs and make fuel more affordable without forcing refiners to sell at a loss. Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has accused the Tinubu Presidency of deliberately distorting concerns raised by Dangote Refinery in a desperate attempt to discredit his production subsidy proposal, saying the refinery’s warning against arbitrary pump-price controls actually exposes the dishonesty of the government’s argument. In a statement issued by his Senior Special Assistant on Public Communication, Phrank Shaibu, Atiku said Dangote Refinery was right to insist that a private refinery cannot be forced to carry losses created by government-imposed prices, but said the Presidency was being deliberately dishonest by pretending that this was what his plan proposed. “Dangote raised a legitimate business concern.

The Presidency turned it into a campaign of fear. “A refinery that has invested billions of dollars cannot be commanded to sell indefinitely below cost and absorb the losses. That would be reckless, economically destructive and unfair to any private investor. “But that is precisely why our proposal is different. “We are restoring subsidy through a production subsidy model, not an import subsidy model. “The difference is simple enough for every Nigerian to understand. Import subsidy spends public money supporting petrol refined abroad and brought into Nigeria. Production subsidy supports crude refined here in Nigeria so that Nigerian refineries can produce fuel more cheaply and Nigerians can pay less. “Think of it like rice.

“My position is straightforward: support what Nigeria produces and refines, lower domestic production costs, and ensure that the benefit reaches the Nigerian consumer. “This is not an import subsidy. If you do not refine in Nigeria, you do not qualify. “The subsidy follows the barrel refined in Nigeria. “Produce here. Refine here. Create jobs here. Pay less here.” Atiku said reducing the underlying cost of energy was important not only because Nigerians buy petrol, but because energy and transportation costs run through agriculture, manufacturing, logistics, markets and household expenditure. “My production-subsidy proposal is therefore not simply a petrol policy. It is part of a broader affordability programme. “I want the farmer to spend less getting produce to market. I want the trader to spend less transporting goods. I want the bus driver to spend less on fuel. I want parents to have more money left after transportation so that they can put better food on the table.

Time has given me experience, but it has not diminished my conviction. I have spent the better part of my life fighting for democracy, justice and the progress of our country, and that fire still burns because I see millions of young Nigerians denied opportunities that should have been theirs. I offer myself not because other leadership has been enough, but because I believe I have better ideas to offer. I cannot, in good conscience, retire that ambition when I know I have something real to give back.

On rising fuel costs, I have always believed the removal of the fuel subsidy was necessary, because it had become a drain that enriched middlemen. What I would prioritise is tackling corruption, starting with repositioning the NNPCL, and paying attention to our poor refining infrastructure. I would commence privatisation of state-owned refineries and work to ensure Nigeria refines at least 50% of its own crude output, with an aspiration to export 50% of that capacity to ECOWAS countries. Alongside this, I want to reduce the cost of energy itself, so it goes further in your pocket. On unemployment, I am putting in place a financing programme for start-ups and entrepreneurs, so young Nigerians can move from dependence to enterprise, from unemployment to productivity. On the high cost of education, my approach will reduce the underlying cost of education and provide forgiveness for qualifying student debts. My administration will provide non-repayable scholarships, grants and bursaries instead of forcing students into debt, while forgiving existing student loan obligations and directly reducing university tuition costs for low-income families.